I hate it when people do this...

Congrats to your opponent who recognized that he had the resources to avoid the loss!

The Outcome Justifies his actions.

Why does everyone think this guy won?  It's weird.  I won because I have skill in quick...The point was I think after I had a superior position he should have resigned instead of trying to win on time.

I wasn't worried about the time because in quick I can make at least 50 moves in a min., but if you see in the game it says 0-1 meaning Black Pieces (me) won the game because he resigned seeing I was about to mate. 

The way I look at is like this:  They might be sacrificing the quality of their moves in order to play quickly.  If the game had been played out on an equal time footing, and they had used as much time as you, then maybe they would have had a better position.  Is it really fair for you to use twice as much time as your opponent uses, and expect him to just resign once the board dictates resignation?

I hate when people complain too much.

Time management as a practical matter is just another imbalance between the two opposing sides along with space/material/pawn structure/king safety etc.  I have lost on time many times before where I had the better situation over the board but failed to manage my time properly.  Dan Heisman has an excellent article on this subject on the internet where he makes the same points made here.

It's a valid reason to play on.  Just the other day I had a game I was proud of where I carried off a successful exchange sacrifice with a winning position and lost on time.  But, I didn't feel like my opponent was doing something unfair and neither should you.

Good points all.

My policy is :

-The position is drawn and my opp is about to lose on time : I offer a draw.

-I have a lost position and my opp's time is running low,I keep on playing and am always ok for a draw.

Play until there are no more chances in the position, which includes the clock.  I'll give you a personal example from one of my 5 minute games.

Good game   Losing a game  on time sucks  , even more  when you 're in  a winning position , however  it is a part of  the game .  So  a won position  with no time left on the clock means nothing for your rating  , but you stil know who really won the game .

nothing wrong with trying to win on time.if I have a worse position and feel that my opponent doesn't have enough time to capitalize on it,I'll keep on playing till the bitter end.on the other hand,if I have a better position or more material and am running dangerously low on time,then I try to force a draw somehow (three-move repetition).doesn't always work though.

I disagree!  Time is a factor in chess competition and clock management is just as important a skill as many others required to compete at a high level.  If a player comes into the engame with a winning position but no time to play the moves he does not have a winning game.

immortalgamer,

Hi. Nice post, as usual. While I 100% agree with you that White is lost after 32. ... bxc3, due to the time controls, especially if there is no time delay (which there should be in tournament settings, otherwise you can just claim draw and you wouldn't have lost) White SHOULD press on in this case. The mate is immanent, but he correctly gambled that you didn't have the skill to mate him fast enough (or maybe you'd crack a little under the gun), which is what happened.

This game has nothing to do with playing blitz to learn to play faster, but rather, you need to brush up on your tactics. Piece activity is what wins endgames. Rather than trying to shut down his pawn storm under time pressure, after you forced the Rook trade on turn 45, you needed to go for the kill!

Cut off half the board by planting your Rook somehwhere on the 4th rank (or the 3rd rank if White will let you), centralize your King, and just mate him. It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds and you had 90 :p

Black to move. Mate in 10 (seconds):

we have all the same constraints, if you win without cheating then so be it. play faster or play a agme with more time. you agreed to these constraints before the start of the game! anyway to me it is "just a game". you will find if you can look at it that way you will relax during play and win more!

good luck in the future

Andy

Poor sportsmanship? Perhaps....Would i have played on?  I doubt it.  Is this a legitimate strategy? Of Course!  Just like using a cheap stalemate trap, the Grob,  or claiming a draw if your opponent has a winning position and dies at the table.  The nature of chess is that ANY advantage must be proven, as you did!  

What I don't understand is the pathos. This is a war game we play, and we must understand that.  Our opponent is our enemy, and their frustration is our joy, their failure our success.   In your situation, I would only smile smugly at the energy my  enemy had foolishly exerted to cling to a lost position... and like you,  extinguish his hopes.  (Provided, of course, such was in my ability)

The psycological factors in chess are many, and deep: But starting a game with the expectation your enemy will quit if things go badly for him is poor preparation, etiquette or no.   You clearly controlled your frustration, but will you be angry next time?  Will your anger make you blunder?  Will you let a strategem like this get the better of you?   

so again whats the complaint here  that you won  or you didn't win fast enough your oponet may of had a death in the family or maybe had to go to work  as long as the out come was you won stop complaining

To me, I consider it bad sportsmanship to win on time when your position is on the brink of mate, but not so much if you are just losing due to lack of material.  If you know that you're going to lose in the next 2-3 moves, you should resign, not only because it's the right thing to do for your opponent, but also because it's a better use of your time as well.

Are you saying that if you were playing a game... Imagine a tournament for dramatic effects, and your opponent was getting close to mate, but had only seconds on the clock, you would resign?

If so next time you (or whoever) might as well use the extra time you picked up to make better moves in the middle game, if you're not going to take advantage of the time you picked up on the opponent.

Again he did win not lose.

Yes.  If, for example, I had a lone king that was 2 moves away from being pinned to the side of the board by a queen+rook (an unarbitrary position with no chance of stalemate or blunder), and I didn't immediately resign, I'd consider it unsportsmanlike conduct.

I realize that it's an unpopular viewpoint amongst the current generation of players (and I tend to fight on myself if I think I have technical opportunities), but maybe one of these days FIDE or USCF will be faced with a situation like this during a championship-level match and the ethical ramification will be made clear.  You have a lost position: lose the game like a real gentleman.  This is Chess, not Football.